Education by force?

Should children be forced to go to school?


  • Total voters
    27
Well, I do think that children should ALL go to school, as education is of paramount importance, however as they get older and some stray and do not wish to educate themselves or are chronically truant... kick their asses to the side!

Give their spot to someone who actually WANTS to learn and educate themself.
 
Wow Manhattan wasn’t bought for 24 dollars? (Just a joke, as I never heard it was sold in the first place but it says on the internet under this site it was bought for $24. Bucks in beads)

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Manhattan-Island

BTW when discussing the issue of “Forced Education”, nobody has mentioned Home Schooling, is this considered a form of forced education on a child when a parent doesn’t even consider public schools?
 
SAM said:
I think there is too much burden of school on children. They have no childhood anymore.
But that is not a consequence of education.

Kids like to learn stuff, and need to know stuff. No burden there.
 
This and that

Oiram said:

Wow Manhattan wasn’t bought for 24 dollars? (Just a joke, as I never heard it was sold in the first place but it says on the internet under this site it was bought for $24. Bucks in beads)

At risk of misinterpreting the question, the issue I would pick isn't the sum recorded in the historical tale, but the participants in the transaction.

Imagine that I walk up to someone and say, "I'll give you fifty bucks for this house." And the guy shrugs and says, "Sure." So I give him the money and move in.

And then you come home from vacation and wonder what the hell I'm doing in your house.

• • •​

S.A.M. said:

I think there is too much burden of school on children. They have no childhood anymore.

I would agree that children bear a detrimental burden, but I'm not sure school itself is the source. Rather, every once in a while we'll hear about how kids are so busy, and we can learn a lot from listening to those kids. If I could find the link, I would cough it up, but the keywords are too vague; I recall hearing an NPR story some months ago, and this one girl, save for the tone of her voice that suggested her age—all of nine years old—she sounded like an adult.

'Cello practice three days a week. Karate and dance. Her weekends taken up with her brother's soccer games and church, or maybe it's baseball. There is something to be said for extracurricular activities in this age of the latchkey, but at some point it's just ridiculous. In the 1990s, there rose a counseling industry dedicated to helping children figure out how to schedule all of their activities. You'd go in once a week, the counselor would review your day-runner, and if there were any problems you would work together to restructure your time to accommodate all its demands. Childhood? Who the hell had time?

I can't imagine the day I want to take my daughter to the Puyallup Fair, and she says, "Hmm ... can I pencil you in for next Thursday?" Of course, she'll be using a PDA, so it's more likely that I'll hear, "Send me an e-mail. I'll check the schedule and get back to you."

And here I thought television was supposed to be the death of the family.
 
I think there is too much burden of school on children. They have no childhood anymore.

yes they do a childhood,

so what do you suggest? they dont go to school at all? and have no education?

school is important for a few reasons,

1, education
2, to know how to cope within peer groups
3, to know how to make friends
4, to know how to talk to adults

education should be the back bone of the childs life,
 
How can you know that? How can you know what some "alternate" world "might" have been?

Intelligent reasoning.


I would suggest that you learned a lot more than you think in school. In fact, you probably learned what was better to learn later in life. Education is not a single entity, it's a long, involved process of building upon other essential educational foundations.

Your suggestion is presumptuous and false. And your 'in fact' is not a fact at all. Your last statement is a non sequitur.
 
I think there is too much burden of school on children. They have no childhood anymore.

" * Parents have the right to spank those of their children above the age of ten years who neglect in performing Islamic prayers in Sunni Islam.[19]
* Regarding those who would spank children a fatwa of the Mufti Kafaayatullah provides as follows:

“ Excluding the face and sensitive parts of the body, it is allowed to beat a child for the purposes of discipline so long as the limits are not transgressed. i.e. to beat the child in a manner that a wound is inflicted, or a bone fractured or broken, or a bruise appears or an internal disorder results (to the heart or brains, etc.). If the limits are transgressed as described above in any way, even by a single stroke, such a person will be regarded as sinful."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_children
 
" * Parents have the right to spank those of their children above the age of ten years who neglect in performing Islamic prayers in Sunni Islam.[19]
* Regarding those who would spank children a fatwa of the Mufti Kafaayatullah provides as follows:

“ Excluding the face and sensitive parts of the body, it is allowed to beat a child for the purposes of discipline so long as the limits are not transgressed. i.e. to beat the child in a manner that a wound is inflicted, or a bone fractured or broken, or a bruise appears or an internal disorder results (to the heart or brains, etc.). If the limits are transgressed as described above in any way, even by a single stroke, such a person will be regarded as sinful."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_children

Hmm you disagree? You could have done with a smack, considering some of your messages. Some soap in the mouth would not be misplaced either. :bugeye:
 
Hmm you disagree? You could have done with a smack, considering some of your messages. Some soap in the mouth would not be misplaced either. :bugeye:

At least I didn't get beaten by my parents for not saying my prayers.

Loss of childhood, indeed.
 
Neither did I. But you appear to suffer from a lack of discipline and tendencies to aggression and bullying. So I would guess there was some kind of abuse there.
 
Neither did I. But you appear to suffer from a lack of discipline and tendencies to aggression and bullying. So I would guess there was some kind of abuse there.

You're just confused of my hostility towards compulsive liars like yourself.
 
Your conduct contradicts

(Q) said:

You're just confused of my hostility towards compulsive liars like yourself.

Your conduct belies that statement. Your lack of compassion toward victims only speaks to your need to further victimize them.
 
No, they couldn't.

Yes, they could.

http://www.mykidsdeservebetter.com/literacy/your_childs_life.asp

By the 1850s, before we had compulsory, government-controlled public schools, child and adult literacy rates averaged over 90 percent, making illiteracy rates less than 10 percent. By 1850, literacy rates in Massachusetts and other New England States, for both men and women, was close to 97 percent. This was before Massachusetts created the first compulsory public-school system in America in 1852. What is literacy like in our public schools today?

Becasue the alternative is tyranny, sooner or later.

Are you claiming that if a child is not taught physical sciences at a public school, tyranny will result? Really?

To claim that public schooling 'prevents' tyranny is pure speculation on your behalf. It's also worth noting that for a government to employ force in order to coerce parents into sending their children to school *is* tyranny.

They destroyed the public schools,

Wait! So the Cambodians had public schooling, yet this didn't stop the rise of the Khmer Rouge? Weren't you contending that education prevented tyranny?

You're right in the sense that the Khmer Rouge destroyed the modern education system. What you fail to admit is that they then *replaced* it with their own compulsory public education system, where children were taught the values of forced labour, collectivism, and anti-theism.

Which demonstrates my point quite aptly. A public education system can be exploited by tyrants to push their agenda and *re-educate* the populance.

Yes, it does. You can't keep the few from becoming educated,

Why not? Educating more people just empowers more potential tyrants, so isn't the answer to just forbid any form of education? If you're willing to coerce parents to send their children to school, surely you wouldn't have any moral qualms about coercing parents to *not* send their children to school.

Right?
 
Last edited:
"“ Excluding the face and sensitive parts of the body, it is allowed to beat a child for the purposes of discipline so long as the limits are not transgressed. i.e. to beat the child in a manner that a wound is inflicted, or a bone fractured or broken, or a bruise appears or an internal disorder results (to the heart or brains, etc.). If the limits are transgressed as described above in any way, even by a single stroke, such a person will be regarded as sinful."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_children

[/quote]

And you have a problem with that? Christianised Europeans have a long history of not wanting to spare the rod. At least the passage above prohibits slapping a kid across the face, or giving them a severe beating. No such restrictions ever existed in Christendom, just ask the previous generations who were schooled by nuns.

Hell, such limits didn't even exist in Western countries up until the last few years (I think Australia and the U.K have made it illegal to strike a child in the face), so you could argue that Islam is quite progressive in that arena.
 
From what I've read it would seem that young children have a far better ability to absorb, to learn, to aquire skills and knowledge than when we're older. Most language learning is done very early. By that premise alone it makes sense to school people when they are young.
Also they have a greater ability to do as they are told than later!:p Less disruptive, less likely to answer back, less likely to question whats on offer...all that makes them better students, in a more efficient classroom

Sorry, I didn't read the the whole thread, just the first few pages. Could it be that a child's heightened ability to learn, absorb and acquire skills never diminishes in a natural state but that the schooling system itself is partly what diminishes it?
 
Admittedly, the noble route is harder, but ....

(Q) said:

What victims?

Victims of religion.

For all your anti-religious zeal, one thing you've forgotten is compassion. In the twenty-first century, it is a difficult proposition to place the full weight of blame for religious idiocy on any of the religious. Sure, there are those like the ICR "scientists" who decided to purify their outlooks and dispense with such silly notions as testable hypotheses, and there are the televangelists and political operatives who should, by virtue of their manipulative prowess, know better. But by and large, the greatest portion of religious idiocy afflicting cultures is inherited. Much as the abused child will often grow up to be an abuser, so, too, does the religiously deceived child often grow into a deceptive adult. These people are caught up in a cycle of—for want of a better term—"spiritual violence". Raised under a spectre of psychological exploitation and emotional blackmail, immersed in cultures that kowtow to dishonest influences and fearful sentiments, they perpetuate the cycle.

This does not mean that they escape accountability, but we must remember, if we hope to be effective agents of change at any level, to address the source of any given problem. Much of your scorn simply excoriates the symptoms. If I put a bandage on a lesion, have I cured the cancer? Even more so, if I take a pill to numb my own pain and frustration, have I addressed another's sickness?

Many seeming compulsive liars are, in fact, victims. This does not mean they do not lie. Nor does it mean their lies are not compulsive. But your address of such issues, over time, suggests that your actions are more about assuaging your own sentiments while leaving the problem intact. Some cynics suggest that we will never find a cure for cancer because doing so would disrupt a lucrative industry of research, treatment, and palliative care. If your actions help ensure that, tomorrow, there will still be a zealot to disdain, well, at least you've accomplished that. But for progress, it's not much of anything.

There will never be peace, some would say, because the arms dealers would have to find new jobs. And what of us, who fight against the hatred and dishonesty of religious zeal? What would we do, if by some unlikely route we see the dawning of that new day when the majority of people are smart enough to not buy into such bullshit?

Don't fear that day. Look forward to it. Even if we do not live to see the sun, at least we can say we tried.
 
And you have a problem with that? Christianised Europeans have a long history of not wanting to spare the rod. At least the passage above prohibits slapping a kid across the face, or giving them a severe beating. No such restrictions ever existed in Christendom, just ask the previous generations who were schooled by nuns.

Hell, such limits didn't even exist in Western countries up until the last few years (I think Australia and the U.K have made it illegal to strike a child in the face), so you could argue that Islam is quite progressive in that arena.

I think we greatly differ on our definitions of 'progressive' as I wouldn't consider violence towards children to be progressive if Islam better defines and calculates it.
 
I think we greatly differ on our definitions of 'progressive' as I wouldn't consider violence towards children to be progressive if Islam better defines and calculates it.

You're weasel wording.

The fatwa you posted imposes very tight restrictions on how Muslims can physically discipline their children. No such tight restrictions have existed in Western society, up until recently in a scant few very liberalised countries.
 
Back
Top